Human caudate nucleus subdivisions in tinnitus modulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The object of this study was to define caudate nucleus locations responsive to intraoperative direct electrical stimulation for tinnitus loudness modulation and relate those locations to functional connectivity maps between caudate nucleus subdivisions and auditory cortex. METHODS: Six awake study participants who underwent bilateral deep brain stimulation (DBS) electrode placement in the caudate nucleus as part of a phase I clinical trial were analyzed for tinnitus modulation in response to acute stimulation at 20 locations. Resting-state 3-T functional MRI (fMRI) was used to compare connectivity strength between centroids of tinnitus loudness-reducing or loudness-nonreducing caudate locations and the auditory cortex in the 6 DBS phase I trial participants and 14 other neuroimaging participants with a Tinnitus Functional Index > 50. RESULTS: Acute tinnitus loudness reduction was observed at 5 caudate locations, 4 positioned at the body and 1 at the head of the caudate nucleus in normalized Montreal Neurological Institute space. The remaining 15 electrical stimulation interrogations of the caudate head failed to reduce tinnitus loudness. Compared to the caudate head, the body subdivision had stronger functional connectivity to the auditory cortex on fMRI (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Acute tinnitus loudness reduction was more readily achieved by electrical stimulation of the caudate nucleus body. Compared to the caudate head, the caudate body has stronger functional connectivity to the auditory cortex. These first-in-human findings provide insight into the functional anatomy of caudate nucleus subdivisions and may inform future target selection in a basal ganglia-centric neuromodulation approach to treat medically refractory tinnitus.Clinical trial registration no.: NCT01988688 (clinicaltrials.gov).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".